Was this the first rebellion against Great Britain's control?
Bacon's Rebellion has generally been portrayed as the earliest rebellion of the colonists against the control of Great Britain that would eventually lead to the Revolutionary War and independence. In fact, there were a few other rebellions that happened in neighboring colonies over the next few decades. However, after reading all of the sources I did for this topic, I tend to think that it was more isolated to this particular time and location than a widespread resentment of English control or policy. I think it would not have happened at all if Bacon had not been there. Bacon had just come to America a couple of years earlier, a point that Berkeley is quick to point out in his declaration.
There was another quote that I found very interesting from Thomas Mathew. He was part of the Assembly that was forced to give Bacon his commission to fight the Indians. He came from the northern part of the region, whereas Bacon came from the most southern part. He is reluctant to support Bacon, militarily as well as politically, because he fears Bacon will not take care for the area Mathew represents. I think it is typical of that time, as well as interesting, that people cared more about their town against another town rather than all of the colony against England. It is another bit of evidence that supports the idea that this wasn't the first battle in the fight for independence.
Is this an example of conflict between the social classes?
Probably. Bacon was wealthy, but the men that followed him were not. They were people who did not own land, and many of them were indentured servants. Most of the richer landowners lived in the cities and closer to the coast so they would have been less directly affected by Indian raids. Because they weren't personally affected as much, they would probably not have cared as much to control the Indian attacks and they also would have been more willing to pay for it through taxes than by fighting themselves, like Bacon's men did. I think this conflict between the city folk and the country folk is actually a major theme in America's history that continues to this day.
Governor Berkeley, in his declaration, describes Bacon's men as "the lowest of people". By listing the 19 other men in the declaration that Bacon calls "wicked and pernicious", I think it might be a case of the "haves vs. have nots" just like the Salem Witch Trials turned out to be.
The Wikipedia article, at least when I looked at it, ends with a statement that Bacon's men were both Black and White, and a suggestion that the ruling classes were afraid that poor Blacks and Whites would join together to overthrow their positions of power. That article cites a source that suggests that tough slavery measures may also have been a way to keep poor Whites and Blacks from joining together.
Any Long-term Effects?
I don't think so. I didn't find any major new policies that came out regarding the causes or how the situation was handled. I guess killing 23 leaders of the rebellion would have sent a pretty clear message to the lower classes not to mess with the governor. He had confiscated any property that those men had, so it might have convinced those with land to keep quiet about their complaints. Bacon does get a bit of a reputation as a local hero in colonial Virginia, but because he died early, it probably doesn't have the impact it might have had if the battle had continued longer. Bacon was about to lose anyway, but if he had been hung instead of died of disease it may have made him a stronger martyr figure.
Was this the first rebellion against Great Britain's control?
Bacon's Rebellion has generally been portrayed as the earliest rebellion of the colonists against the control of Great Britain that would eventually lead to the Revolutionary War and independence. In fact, there were a few other rebellions that happened in neighboring colonies over the next few decades. However, after reading all of the sources I did for this topic, I tend to think that it was more isolated to this particular time and location than a widespread resentment of English control or policy. I think it would not have happened at all if Bacon had not been there. Bacon had just come to America a couple of years earlier, a point that Berkeley is quick to point out in his declaration.
There was another quote that I found very interesting from Thomas Mathew. He was part of the Assembly that was forced to give Bacon his commission to fight the Indians. He came from the northern part of the region, whereas Bacon came from the most southern part. He is reluctant to support Bacon, militarily as well as politically, because he fears Bacon will not take care for the area Mathew represents. I think it is typical of that time, as well as interesting, that people cared more about their town against another town rather than all of the colony against England. It is another bit of evidence that supports the idea that this wasn't the first battle in the fight for independence.
Is this an example of conflict between the social classes?
Probably. Bacon was wealthy, but the men that followed him were not. They were people who did not own land, and many of them were indentured servants. Most of the richer landowners lived in the cities and closer to the coast so they would have been less directly affected by Indian raids. Because they weren't personally affected as much, they would probably not have cared as much to control the Indian attacks and they also would have been more willing to pay for it through taxes than by fighting themselves, like Bacon's men did. I think this conflict between the city folk and the country folk is actually a major theme in America's history that continues to this day.
Governor Berkeley, in his declaration, describes Bacon's men as "the lowest of people". By listing the 19 other men in the declaration that Bacon calls "wicked and pernicious", I think it might be a case of the "haves vs. have nots" just like the Salem Witch Trials turned out to be.
The Wikipedia article, at least when I looked at it, ends with a statement that Bacon's men were both Black and White, and a suggestion that the ruling classes were afraid that poor Blacks and Whites would join together to overthrow their positions of power. That article cites a source that suggests that tough slavery measures may also have been a way to keep poor Whites and Blacks from joining together.
Any Long-term Effects?
I don't think so. I didn't find any major new policies that came out regarding the causes or how the situation was handled. I guess killing 23 leaders of the rebellion would have sent a pretty clear message to the lower classes not to mess with the governor. He had confiscated any property that those men had, so it might have convinced those with land to keep quiet about their complaints. Bacon does get a bit of a reputation as a local hero in colonial Virginia, but because he died early, it probably doesn't have the impact it might have had if the battle had continued longer. Bacon was about to lose anyway, but if he had been hung instead of died of disease it may have made him a stronger martyr figure.
Back to Bacon's Rebellion Startpage